---

Arts

My Lords, our debate this morning gives me the opportunity to say a few words about jazz. Jazz is a significant contributor to the arts and the economy, although recent legislation has done nothing to help. I want jazz to prosper and grow, and to become more available to present and future generations. I want young people to be aware of and to play jazz. I want them to be shown how to handle and play a wide range of musical instruments. I first picked up a trumpet at the age of eight. I am still playing and declare my interest as a very mediocre but enthusiastic student of jazz. Jazz has a vigour and life of its own. It requires additional support to reach its full potential to sustain and nurture its musicians and audience, and to make a full contribution to the world of music. Great architecture, craftsmanship, visual art and music have always been patronised, sponsored and subsidised—and so it should be with jazz. Today jazz is played by musicians throughout the country. Many UK jazz musicians have developed international reputations and have committed their work to recordings that are bought by a worldwide audience. There is no major city in the UK without a jazz scene. Both mature musicians of established reputation and young musicians, many with great flair and originality, seek a serious audience who can understand and enjoy their music. They perform in a variety of settings, from concert halls, art centres, village halls, ballrooms and restaurants to coffee and public houses. Every summer, there is a profusion of jazz festivals all over the country, many attracting some of the finest jazz musicians in the world. One feature of the jazz audience is its size: some 3 million people patronise these events, with four or five times that amount expressing a definable interest in jazz. I recently attended some of the concerts at the Cheltenham Jazz Festival. The audience were predominantly much younger than I. Research shows that a typical audience has a 3:2 male to female ratio, and 70 per cent will be between 16 and 35. Last night in the Terrace Pavilion, in my capacity as co-chairman of the parliamentary jazz appreciation group, we hosted the second annual parliamentary jazz awards. There was live music from Leanne Carol, and members of the group, including the Deputy Prime Minister and Kenneth Clarke MP, awarded prizes to wonderful performers, writers, broadcasters, jazz club owners and educationalists. We were also delighted to welcome Sir John Dankworth, who presented the award for services to jazz. I am sure the whole House would wish to congratulate John on his recent knighthood for his services to jazz music. I thank Fran Nevrkla and PPL for their sponsorship of the parliamentary group. Ten years ago, jazz services made representations to the National Heritage Select Committee. Its first report on the funding of the performing and visual arts stated:"““We do not believe that the different level of overheads in the performance of jazz and opera explains the massive discrepancy between the subsidy per member of the audience in the two forms of music; the Arts Council should look again at the funding of jazz played by British musicians””." It is right for the state to subsidise the arts, and they should receive more support than at present if they are to be for the many and not the few. Sadly, within the arts family, jazz is seriously underfunded. It needs and deserves support as a legitimate art form with the visual arts, theatre and cinema. Our museums and art galleries are publicly financed in order to bring that art to the public. Jazz receives some public funding, but it is too little. In 1997–98, the Arts Council support for jazz fell from £1.9 million to £1 million. However, the situation has improved, although perhaps not relative to other art forms. I am grateful to Alan James, who gave me some up-to-date figures last night. The Arts Council has prioritised strengthening the national infrastructure for jazz, and increased core funding has focused on a number of strategic organisations. The council provided revenue funding of £1 million to jazz organisations, and further funding to organisations with some jazz connections. Grants were made to the Jazz Development Trust, the National Youth Orchestra, Tomorrow’s Warriors and Serious, which set up and runs the London Jazz Festival. In 2003, the Arts Council introduced a single, open-access funding programme to support various organisations and individuals involved in a broad range of jazz activity, including festivals, concerts, the commissioning of new work, training and development. This seems to be much improved, but jazz is still a poor relation. In 2005–06, jazz funding was £1 million; for 2006–07, opera received £62 million. I hope that the Minister will support efforts to secure better funding for the future. Another restriction on the performance of jazz is the shambles created by the new licensing legislation. The Act included the ““playing of recorded music”” in the description of regulated entertainment, but it was changed in the transition to the new regime for existing bars, pubs, restaurants, hotels and any premises that were already licensed to sell alcohol. Those places were allowed to keep jukeboxes, or other systems for the playing of recorded sound, no matter how powerful the amplification. However, the automatic permission to have one or two live musicians in such venues, amplified or not, has ceased. That was the live performer element of the so called ““two in a bar rule””, which had been available in those premises as an exception from the general requirement to hold a public entertainment licence for live music since 1961. How is this possibly going to encourage jazz and jazz musicians? The DCMS hoped that existing bars, pubs and restaurants would seek authorisation during the changeover period by varying their licence application to include live music, which could be done for one fee. However, the new system is not straightforward. It entails public advertisement at the applicant’s expense and a period for public consultation, vetting by the police, the fire authority, and on grounds of environmental health, planning and, ultimately, the approval of the licensing committee of the local authority. If objections are received, whether from local residents or other agencies, a public hearing may be required with potential knock-on costs. The Government were warned that the new arrangements would do nothing to promote live music and there have been many examples of the failures of the Act. I read with interest that the DCMS has confirmed Shaun Woodward as the new Minister with responsibility for alcohol and entertainment licensing, taking over from James Purnell. While the Licensing Act was a Bill, Mr Woodward was a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which published five reports during 2003 criticising live music reforms. Its reasons included risks to people’s right to freedom of expression and discrimination against secular premises. In the last report, published in July 2003, the JCHR wrongly concluded that the Act covers amplified and unamplified music in the same way. The Act did not and does not treat live and recorded music equally. During the licence conversion period in 2005, bars and restaurants were automatically allowed to keep recording systems, but their automatic right to have one or two live musicians was taken away. The exemption for broadcast entertainment, which is inevitably amplified, against the potential requirement to licence even one unamplified musician is another example of unequal treatment. I hope that Mr Woodward will consider and rely on his experience with human rights when overseeing the implementation of the Licensing Act in relation to musicians in future. To conclude, will the Minister confirm support for the jazz economy and encourage further funding wherever possible?